Illustration by Celine Bejjani
In my first programming class, I believed code lived in a world of pure logic, a precise conversation between humans and machines. But that illusion didn't last long. I soon discovered that programming languages carry the fingerprints and biases of their creators — and those people were mostly English-speaking men.
That realization hit hardest when I had to translate every line of code twice. Being French-educated meant I had to translate every line of code twice: English to French in my notes, then back to the syntax on screen. What came easily to native English speakers felt twice as hard: learning logic while decoding a foreign language. It was exhausting — and isolating.
My struggle highlights a broader truth that researchers Ari Schlesinger and Felienne Hermans are now confronting: coding language that is not neutral; it reflects our social hierarchies, our ideas of logic, and our gendered notions of what counts as intelligence.
A feminist rethinking of programming languages could make the tech world more inclusive. And for many students, including myself, the way code is designed can determine whether they feel welcome in the field at all.
The hierarchy of ‘serious’ coding
For decades, programming has spoken in a single tone: firm, abstract, rule-driven. Some languages (like C and Assembly) are celebrated for being "close to the machine." Ideals of control and mastery shaped the very definition of what "serious" code means.
Python, by contrast, gets dismissed as "too easy." Its indentation and plain English keywords — like "if," "for" and “print” — make it accessible to beginners. But accessibility, in traditional coding culture, reads as weakness.
This hierarchy isn't accidental. It mirrors broader patterns in how technical expertise gets defined and valued, particularly along gender lines. Languages that prioritize human comprehension over machine efficiency challenge deeply held beliefs about what makes a programmer — and by extension, what makes programming — legitimate.
English as gatekeeper, and multilingual solutions
If you’ve ever seen a beginner struggle with a simple error message — “Syntax Error: invalid syntax” — you’ll understand that programming assumes English fluency. Every keyword in Java, Python, or C is English: if, else, while, return.
But for millions, like me, learning to code in a second language is an invisible barrier. I had to master not just programming concepts like inheritance, polymorphism and encapsulation, but their English terminology — complex words that carried no meaning in my existing knowledge base.
Code literacy is deeply tied to language literacy. And the assumption that "everyone understands English" quietly determines who feels welcome in tech — the type of exclusion Hermans and Schlesinger describe as subtle but powerful.
These hurdles are driving new, more inclusive projects, like Hedy, a multilingual programming language designed for beginners. Users can write commands in their native language — print "Hello,", "Hola," or even “قول مرحبا” — and all are equally valid. This simple choice turns code from a gatekeeping system into a shared language.
Efforts to challenge linguistic biases in established languages are also growing. Python (in 2018) and Microsoft (in 2020) replaced “master/slave” terminology in system design with “main/worker” or “leader/follower,” responding to concerns about harmful connotation. Small shifts like these demonstrate how language shapes empathy — in code as in life.
Invisible pioneers
The idea that coding is inherently “masculine” collapses when you look at its early history.
Grace Hopper designed COBOL to use English-like syntax, making software more accessible to non-specialists. Meanwhile, Barbara Liskov defined principles of data abstraction that directly shaped modern object-oriented programming. And Jean Sammet developed FORMAC, one of the first languages for symbolic mathematical computation.
These contributions rarely make it into foundational textbooks, even though they helped build the digital world.
Toward a more compassionate code development
The feminist perspective doesn't reject logic or precision. It questions why those values crowd out others — like clarity, accessibility and human understanding. The most maintainable code, researchers argue, is simple code. Code that others can read, understand and build upon. Code that acknowledges its ultimate purpose: serving human needs.
Programming exists beyond its functional role in machine operation, Schlesinger and Hermans explain. The practice involves understanding how people think, how they organize patterns and how they share knowledge.
Adding empathy to programming doesn't weaken technology, they argue. It strengthens it.
The question now is whether the field will embrace this broader definition of excellence — or continue elevating a narrow set of masculine and Western-centric values as the only path to "serious" code.
For me and millions of potential programmers who remain limited by languages that speak in only one voice, the answer matters.
Hend Albakour is a student at the American University of Beirut.
amazing perspective
17 December 2025 20:44